Genesis, Evolution And An Essay
My friend Dean is writing essays for people who donate $50 to a Katrina relief fund. They choose a topic and he’ll write on it. It’s a good idea and he’s finished two as of this writing. I’m sure more are to follow. However, it is in response to his second essay, “The Biblical Genesis” that I am writing this now. He was asked to expound upon the question, “Does the Theory of Evolution refute the account in Genesis 1 & 2?” Unfortunately I feel he doesn’t answer it adequately as he treats the Genesis account as purely myth. As his supporting evidences he quotes other creation myth accounts and leaves it at that. That Dean is an agnostic colors his analysis to a degree. In all fairness to him and readers of this essay I, being a Christian, must admit that my faith may also color my analysis. However, I believe I can fairly and critically look at the Genesis creation story yet retain my faith. Here I will endeavor to do two things. First, determine whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 fit the mold of “creation myth.” Second, answer the question I believe was left dangling, “Does Genesis and Evolution mesh?”
These two questions have been addressed here on my blog before but not in one single essay. I hope readers enjoy what I am to present and give both mine a Dean’s essays the thought they deserve.
“Does the Genesis creation story fit the ‘creation myth’ mold?”
Leaving Genesis aside for a moment lets look at the extra-Biblical creation myths Dean cites in support of his argument and compare them to what Genesis states. He primarily gives us the Greek and Egyptian creation myths. I think the latter is particularly poignant when looking at the Genesis creation story but I’ll address that later.
Greek:
Looking at the Greek creation myth we start with Gaia. The author of Dean’s source tells us that Gaia came to be out of Chaos from a parthenogenic birth (Chaos herself gave birth to her alone). That Gaia (and other first beings depending upon whether or not you prefer the Hesiod over the Ovid version of the story) “pretty much just appeared.” Gaia herself then gives birth to Uranus (the Universe) and Pontus (the Sea). Uranus falls in love with Gaia and showers her with rain allowing her to give birth to the rest of creation. Gaia and Uranus essentially then populate space together. Gaia gives birth to many other children such as the Titans, Cyclopes, Meliads, Aetna, Eurybia, Nereus, Phorcys, Ceto, Thaumas, Atlas, Acheron, Antaeus and on and on.
Egyptian:
This account is a bit more complicated than the Greek but is also strikingly similar in its base elements. Rather than try to summarize it here I’ll ask that you simply read Dean’s source.
Commonalities:
So, what are the common threads these two (and all other extra-Biblical creation stories) share? First, a god is assigned to virtually every unique aspect of nature. In the Egyptian case multiple gods are assigned for varying stages of some processes. Second, gods are created or born. Gaia (born out of Chaos) gave birth to Uranus, Shu and Tefnut (birthed by Atum) gave birth to Geb and Nut. Third, the process of creation is quite biological in nature. Biological functions such as birthing, crying, vomiting and others, by the gods, are cause for creation. Fourth, other extra-Biblical account show gods warring with one another as the reason behind the stages and features of the Earth. One tells that the Tigris and Euphrates flowed through the eye sockets of a slain god. I find the Babylonian creation myth particularly compelling.
Now, look for these things in Genesis. They’re simply not there. I believe that the Genesis creation story is lumped into the “creation myth” pile simply because it appears in a religious text and that it involves a god. Other than those two factors the Genesis creation story has nothing in common with any other ancient creation account. The creation myths Dean has cited, indeed every creation myth out there, has obviously been penned by a human hand. It’s plain to see that when these myths were first realized they were drawn from the experience of the people of that time. They wrote what they knew. The fact that the Genesis story doesn’t contain these same humanistic elements should give ancient text scholars pause. Indeed, you would expect to see, at the very least, strong Egyptian influence upon Genesis 1 and 2. It simply isn’t there. Genesis looks nothing like the other creation accounts of the time from whence it came. That cannot be stated strongly enough. Every single ancient creation myth we have contains humanistic gods engaging in creation using methods familiar to those of the time. Except Genesis.
So, now we come to the “contradiction” between Genesis 1 and 2. If I may be blunt: There is no contradiction. However, in order to understand this you need to be aware of two things Hebraic verbiage and perspective. The following paragraphs are essentially lifted verbatim from Hugh Ross’, “The Fingerprint of God.”
Critics of Genesis 1 and 2 cite the order of events thusly:
Genesis 1 order of events
1. heavens and earth created
2. light created
3. light divided from darkness
4. heaven (“firmament”) created
5. land separated from water
6. plant life created
7. Sun, Moon, and stars created
8. animal life created
9. man (male and female) created
Genesis 2 order of events
1. heavens and earth created
2. plant life created
3. man (male only) created
4. animal life created
5. woman made from man’s side
These two accounts do seem to have their problems but this is resolved once you take perspective, or point of view, into account. Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God’s assignments of authority and responsibility. Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction.
Genesis 1:1 uses the Hebrew words shamayin and erets for the heavens and earth respectively. When these words are joined in Hebrew literature, as they are in Genesis 1:1, they refer to the entire physical universe. The Hebrew word for “created,” bara, refers always to divine activity. The word emphasizes the newness of the created object. Genesis 1:1 tells us of God creating, brining from non-existence, the entire universe.
Now, with Genesis 1:2 we switch perspective from looking at the entire universe to under the cloud cover, on the surface of the waters of the earth. The miracles described in the account take place in or under the earth’s atmosphere, not in the broader scope of outer space.
Genesis 1:2 also states for us three initial conditions of planet earth:
It was dark upon the surface of the ocean.
The earth was formless, or disorganized.
The earth was void or empty.
Since Genesis 1 focuses on the introduction of life upon the earth, formless and void (or disorganized or empty) are best interpreted in the context of life. That is, the Bible says that in its initial state, the earth was unfit to support life and was literally “empty” of life. We are told, too, that the earth’s atmosphere (and/or interplanetary debris) blocked out the light that exists throughout the universe. Light could not pass through to the surface.
The physics of star and planet formation verifies that the proto-earth indeed must have had an atmosphere (or debris cloud) opaque to light. Such studies also confirm that conditions of the proto-earth made it entirely unfit for the support of life.
With the point of view and initial conditions established, we can properly interpret the Biblical chronology of events. What was once baffling and incorrect now becomes comprehensible and demonstrably accurate. It may be useful to note, too, that six different Hebrew verbs are used for God’s creative work. Bara appears in the manuscripts only twice more after Genesis 1:1, once for the creation of nephesh, or soulish animals – those creatures endowed with mind, will and emotions (namely, birds and mammals) – and again for the creation of adam, or “spirit” beings – those creatures endowed with the capacity to respond to God Himself.
So, what we now have is this:
Order of Genesis 1 creations events
1. creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent
3. formation of a stable water cycle
4. establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)
5. production of plants on the continent(s)
6. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and the stars became visible for the first time)
7. production of small sea animals
8. creation of sea mammals (nephesh)
9. creation of birds [possible same time as 8] (more nephesh)
10. making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents – still more nephesh)
11. creation of mankind (adam)
The record above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. While some have found fault with it for its simplicity and brevity we must remember that when this was recorded some 3500 years ago it was recoded for the use of all people of all times and cultures. So, simplicity was and is important.
As great as all this is, and to answer the question of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution, we must answer the young/old earth question. I’ll be brief here and simply deal with the words translated into English as “day,” “evening” and “morning.”
The Hebrew word yowm, translated as day, may be used (and is) within the Bible, as it is in English, to indicate any four time periods: a) from sunrise and sunset, b) from sunset to sunset, c) a segment of time without and reference to solar days (usually several years), and d) an age or epoch.
The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated evening also means “sunset,” “night,” or “ending of the day.” And the word boqer, translated morning, also means “sunrise,” “coming of light,” “beginning of day,” or “dawning,” with possible metaphoric usage.
Some have argued for 24-hour days on the basis that yown, when attached to an ordinal (second, third, fourth, etc.) elsewhere in the Bible always refers to a 24-hours period. This argument is inconclusive. The Bible, after all, has no other occasion to enumerate epochs of time. More importantly, no rule of Hebrew grammar states that yowm attached to an ordinal must refer to 24-hour days.
Others have argued that the Hebrew word ‘olam (as opposed to yowm) would have been used to indicate a long time period. However, Hebrew lexicons show that the word ‘olam only referred to a long age or period in post-Biblical writings. In biblical times it meant “forever,” “perpetual,” “lasting,” “always,” “of olden times,” or “the remote past, future, or both,” but the range of its usage did not include a set period of time.
It’s also interesting to note that the seventh day in Genesis 1 and 2 is not closed out. We’re still in that seventh day.
So, we have an old earth, a non-mythological creation account and the Theory of Evolution. This is what we’ve been building up to. Does the Theory of Evolution refute the account in Genesis 1 & 2?
No.
As I’ve already shown Genesis 1 presents the creation of the universe and life on earth in a way that completely meshes with science. But when people speak of evolution they are asking about microevolution – once species evolving over a period of time into another. The Bible is largely mute on that particular subject. Like I said above, Genesis 1 and 2 were written in broad strokes. God didn’t need to get into specifics because they weren’t important. The point of Genesis 1 and 2 is to show what God did to achieve His masterpiece – humanity – and God’s assignment of authority and responsibility. Could God have used an evolutionary process to lead up to a man-animal? Possibly. However, the scientific record of that evolution is still hotly debated today. But let’s say for a moment He did. So what? Genesis tells us that man is unique amongst all creation because he has a spirit. Man is able to commune with God. That is the point of it all. That evolution may have occurred doesn’t remove God from the picture nor does it make us any less accountable to Him.
These two questions have been addressed here on my blog before but not in one single essay. I hope readers enjoy what I am to present and give both mine a Dean’s essays the thought they deserve.
“Does the Genesis creation story fit the ‘creation myth’ mold?”
Leaving Genesis aside for a moment lets look at the extra-Biblical creation myths Dean cites in support of his argument and compare them to what Genesis states. He primarily gives us the Greek and Egyptian creation myths. I think the latter is particularly poignant when looking at the Genesis creation story but I’ll address that later.
Greek:
Looking at the Greek creation myth we start with Gaia. The author of Dean’s source tells us that Gaia came to be out of Chaos from a parthenogenic birth (Chaos herself gave birth to her alone). That Gaia (and other first beings depending upon whether or not you prefer the Hesiod over the Ovid version of the story) “pretty much just appeared.” Gaia herself then gives birth to Uranus (the Universe) and Pontus (the Sea). Uranus falls in love with Gaia and showers her with rain allowing her to give birth to the rest of creation. Gaia and Uranus essentially then populate space together. Gaia gives birth to many other children such as the Titans, Cyclopes, Meliads, Aetna, Eurybia, Nereus, Phorcys, Ceto, Thaumas, Atlas, Acheron, Antaeus and on and on.
Egyptian:
This account is a bit more complicated than the Greek but is also strikingly similar in its base elements. Rather than try to summarize it here I’ll ask that you simply read Dean’s source.
Commonalities:
So, what are the common threads these two (and all other extra-Biblical creation stories) share? First, a god is assigned to virtually every unique aspect of nature. In the Egyptian case multiple gods are assigned for varying stages of some processes. Second, gods are created or born. Gaia (born out of Chaos) gave birth to Uranus, Shu and Tefnut (birthed by Atum) gave birth to Geb and Nut. Third, the process of creation is quite biological in nature. Biological functions such as birthing, crying, vomiting and others, by the gods, are cause for creation. Fourth, other extra-Biblical account show gods warring with one another as the reason behind the stages and features of the Earth. One tells that the Tigris and Euphrates flowed through the eye sockets of a slain god. I find the Babylonian creation myth particularly compelling.
Now, look for these things in Genesis. They’re simply not there. I believe that the Genesis creation story is lumped into the “creation myth” pile simply because it appears in a religious text and that it involves a god. Other than those two factors the Genesis creation story has nothing in common with any other ancient creation account. The creation myths Dean has cited, indeed every creation myth out there, has obviously been penned by a human hand. It’s plain to see that when these myths were first realized they were drawn from the experience of the people of that time. They wrote what they knew. The fact that the Genesis story doesn’t contain these same humanistic elements should give ancient text scholars pause. Indeed, you would expect to see, at the very least, strong Egyptian influence upon Genesis 1 and 2. It simply isn’t there. Genesis looks nothing like the other creation accounts of the time from whence it came. That cannot be stated strongly enough. Every single ancient creation myth we have contains humanistic gods engaging in creation using methods familiar to those of the time. Except Genesis.
So, now we come to the “contradiction” between Genesis 1 and 2. If I may be blunt: There is no contradiction. However, in order to understand this you need to be aware of two things Hebraic verbiage and perspective. The following paragraphs are essentially lifted verbatim from Hugh Ross’, “The Fingerprint of God.”
Critics of Genesis 1 and 2 cite the order of events thusly:
Genesis 1 order of events
1. heavens and earth created
2. light created
3. light divided from darkness
4. heaven (“firmament”) created
5. land separated from water
6. plant life created
7. Sun, Moon, and stars created
8. animal life created
9. man (male and female) created
Genesis 2 order of events
1. heavens and earth created
2. plant life created
3. man (male only) created
4. animal life created
5. woman made from man’s side
These two accounts do seem to have their problems but this is resolved once you take perspective, or point of view, into account. Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God’s assignments of authority and responsibility. Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction.
Genesis 1:1 uses the Hebrew words shamayin and erets for the heavens and earth respectively. When these words are joined in Hebrew literature, as they are in Genesis 1:1, they refer to the entire physical universe. The Hebrew word for “created,” bara, refers always to divine activity. The word emphasizes the newness of the created object. Genesis 1:1 tells us of God creating, brining from non-existence, the entire universe.
Now, with Genesis 1:2 we switch perspective from looking at the entire universe to under the cloud cover, on the surface of the waters of the earth. The miracles described in the account take place in or under the earth’s atmosphere, not in the broader scope of outer space.
Genesis 1:2 also states for us three initial conditions of planet earth:
It was dark upon the surface of the ocean.
The earth was formless, or disorganized.
The earth was void or empty.
Since Genesis 1 focuses on the introduction of life upon the earth, formless and void (or disorganized or empty) are best interpreted in the context of life. That is, the Bible says that in its initial state, the earth was unfit to support life and was literally “empty” of life. We are told, too, that the earth’s atmosphere (and/or interplanetary debris) blocked out the light that exists throughout the universe. Light could not pass through to the surface.
The physics of star and planet formation verifies that the proto-earth indeed must have had an atmosphere (or debris cloud) opaque to light. Such studies also confirm that conditions of the proto-earth made it entirely unfit for the support of life.
With the point of view and initial conditions established, we can properly interpret the Biblical chronology of events. What was once baffling and incorrect now becomes comprehensible and demonstrably accurate. It may be useful to note, too, that six different Hebrew verbs are used for God’s creative work. Bara appears in the manuscripts only twice more after Genesis 1:1, once for the creation of nephesh, or soulish animals – those creatures endowed with mind, will and emotions (namely, birds and mammals) – and again for the creation of adam, or “spirit” beings – those creatures endowed with the capacity to respond to God Himself.
So, what we now have is this:
Order of Genesis 1 creations events
1. creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent
3. formation of a stable water cycle
4. establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s)
5. production of plants on the continent(s)
6. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and the stars became visible for the first time)
7. production of small sea animals
8. creation of sea mammals (nephesh)
9. creation of birds [possible same time as 8] (more nephesh)
10. making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents – still more nephesh)
11. creation of mankind (adam)
The record above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. While some have found fault with it for its simplicity and brevity we must remember that when this was recorded some 3500 years ago it was recoded for the use of all people of all times and cultures. So, simplicity was and is important.
As great as all this is, and to answer the question of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution, we must answer the young/old earth question. I’ll be brief here and simply deal with the words translated into English as “day,” “evening” and “morning.”
The Hebrew word yowm, translated as day, may be used (and is) within the Bible, as it is in English, to indicate any four time periods: a) from sunrise and sunset, b) from sunset to sunset, c) a segment of time without and reference to solar days (usually several years), and d) an age or epoch.
The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated evening also means “sunset,” “night,” or “ending of the day.” And the word boqer, translated morning, also means “sunrise,” “coming of light,” “beginning of day,” or “dawning,” with possible metaphoric usage.
Some have argued for 24-hour days on the basis that yown, when attached to an ordinal (second, third, fourth, etc.) elsewhere in the Bible always refers to a 24-hours period. This argument is inconclusive. The Bible, after all, has no other occasion to enumerate epochs of time. More importantly, no rule of Hebrew grammar states that yowm attached to an ordinal must refer to 24-hour days.
Others have argued that the Hebrew word ‘olam (as opposed to yowm) would have been used to indicate a long time period. However, Hebrew lexicons show that the word ‘olam only referred to a long age or period in post-Biblical writings. In biblical times it meant “forever,” “perpetual,” “lasting,” “always,” “of olden times,” or “the remote past, future, or both,” but the range of its usage did not include a set period of time.
It’s also interesting to note that the seventh day in Genesis 1 and 2 is not closed out. We’re still in that seventh day.
So, we have an old earth, a non-mythological creation account and the Theory of Evolution. This is what we’ve been building up to. Does the Theory of Evolution refute the account in Genesis 1 & 2?
No.
As I’ve already shown Genesis 1 presents the creation of the universe and life on earth in a way that completely meshes with science. But when people speak of evolution they are asking about microevolution – once species evolving over a period of time into another. The Bible is largely mute on that particular subject. Like I said above, Genesis 1 and 2 were written in broad strokes. God didn’t need to get into specifics because they weren’t important. The point of Genesis 1 and 2 is to show what God did to achieve His masterpiece – humanity – and God’s assignment of authority and responsibility. Could God have used an evolutionary process to lead up to a man-animal? Possibly. However, the scientific record of that evolution is still hotly debated today. But let’s say for a moment He did. So what? Genesis tells us that man is unique amongst all creation because he has a spirit. Man is able to commune with God. That is the point of it all. That evolution may have occurred doesn’t remove God from the picture nor does it make us any less accountable to Him.
